The Unassuming Economist

From Oxfam:

“Key recommendations: 

Governments should listen to ordinary citizens and take meaningful action to reduce inequality. All governments should set concrete, timebound targets and action plans to reduce inequality as part of their commitments under Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 10 on inequality. These plans should include action in the following three areas:

1. Deliver universal free health care, education and other public services that also work for women and girls. Stop supporting privatization of public services. Provide pensions, child benefits and other social protection for all. Design all services to ensure they also deliver for women and girls.
2. Free up women’s time by easing the millions of unpaid hours they spend every day caring for their families and homes. Let those who do this essential work have a say in budget decisions and make freeing up women’s time a key objective of government spending. Invest in public services including water, electricity and childcare that reduce the time needed to do this unpaid work. Design all public services in a way that works for those with little time to spare.
3. End the under-taxation of rich individuals and corporations. Tax wealth and capital at fairer levels. Stop the race to the bottom on personal income and corporate taxes. Eliminate tax avoidance and evasion by corporates and the super-rich. Agree a new set of global rules and institutions to fundamentally redesign the tax system to make it fair, with developing countries having an equal seat at the table.

Public good, not private wealth

The gap between rich and poor is pulling us apart. It stops us from beating poverty and achieving equality between women and men. Yet most of our political leaders are failing to reduce this dangerous divide. It does not have to be this way. Inequality is not inevitable – it is a political choice.8 Concrete steps can be taken to reduce it.

This report focuses on the unparalleled power of universal public services like education and health in tackling poverty and reducing inequality.9 Universal public services are the foundation of free and fair societies. If they choose to do so, governments can deliver life-saving public services for all their citizens.

There is a growing consensus that the wealth of individuals and corporations is not being adequately taxed, and instead taxes are falling disproportionately on working people. For every dollar of tax revenue, on average just 4 cents are made up of revenue from wealth taxes.

The fortunes of the world’s super-rich have grown to record levels. By taxing wealth more fairly, enough money could be raised globally to ensure that every child goes to school and no one is bankrupted by the cost of medical treatment for their families. In doing this, it is possible to build a more Human Economy– one that is more equal and values what truly matters.

Progress in fighting poverty slows dramatically

One of the great achievements in recent decades has been the huge reduction in the numbers of people living in extreme poverty, defined by the World Bank as $1.90 per person per day. Yet new evidence from the World Bank shows that the rate of poverty reduction has halved since 2013. Extreme poverty is actually increasing in sub-Saharan Africa. This new evidence also shows that much of humanity has barely escaped poverty, with just under half the world’s population – 3.4 billion people – subsisting on less than $5.50 a day, which is the World Bank’s new poverty line for extreme poverty in upper-middle-income countries. The Bank finds that women are more often among the poorest people, particularly during their reproductive years, because of the level of unpaid care work they are expected to do.

This is a direct result of inequality, and of prosperity accruing disproportionately to those at the top for decades. The World Inequality Report 2018 showed that between 1980 and 2016 the poorest 50% of humanity only captured 12 cents in every dollar of global income growth. By contrast, the top 1% captured 27 cents of every dollar. The lesson is clear: to beat poverty, we must fight inequality.
The human cost of inequality is devastating. Today:

• 262 million children will not be allowed to go to school.
• Almost 10,000 people will die because they cannot access healthcare.
• 16.4 billion hours of unpaid care work will be done, the majority by women in poverty.”

Continue reading here.

From the latest IMF report on Panama:

“In light of Panama’s continually strong growth in recent decades, this paper investigates the relevance of the “middle-income trap” for Panama and its prospects for maintaining strong growth in the future. It finds that following the political stabilization in the 1990s, Panama experienced stellar growth performance that brought it closer to moving from the middle to the high-income bracket. However, international evidence suggests that maintaining high growth rates may prove increasingly challenging for countries at Panama’s current level of income. In this context, the paper argues that Panama’s prospects for maintaining buoyant growth critically depends on continued productivity growth underpinned by comprehensive reforms focused on improving education quality, attracting talent, and continuing to enhance the investment climate.”

From a new IMF working paper by Sriram Balasubramanian and Paul Cashin:

“This paper examines the origins and use of the concept of Gross National Happiness (or subjective well-being) in the Kingdom of Bhutan, and the relationship between measured well-being and macroeconomic indicators. While there are only a few national surveys of Gross National Happiness in Bhutan, the concept has been used to guide public policymaking for the country’s various Five-Year Plans. Consistent with the Easterlin Paradox, available evidence indicates that Bhutan’s rapid increase in national income is only weakly associated with increases in measured levels of well-being. It will be important for Bhutan to undertake more frequent Gross National Happiness surveys and evaluations, to better build evidence for comovement of well-being and macroeconomic concepts such as real national income.”

From EconoSpeak:

“In the world of urban politics, there is probably no more potent populist rallying cry than the demand to halt gentrification.  Activists have fought it on multiple fronts: zoning, development subsidies, permitting, rent control—every lever housing policies afford.  But what if they’re mistaking cause for effect, hacking away at the visible manifestations of the problem while leaving the problem itself intact?

Pivot to an important article in today’s New York Times, reporting on recent research David Autor  of MIT presented at the economics meetings in Atlanta earlier this month.  It’s all summed up in this set of charts:

As you can see from the tiny print at the top, the data are being read horizontally within each chart, from less dense regions (rural areas) on the left to high density cities on the right.  The question being asked in the article is, if you live in a rural area or a small town, how much benefit can you get from moving to a big city?  In the early post-WWII period, the answer was “a lot” for both the majority holding only a high school diploma and the few with a college BA.  By 2015 the situation had changed: it was still a good move for college grads but there was little to be gained by those with only a high school education—and probably even less when you factor in the increased cost of living.  That’s an interesting story.

But there’s another way to read these charts, vertically, comparing wage gaps at any particular time and place between these two education-defined groups.  In 1950 the gap was relatively small; in the densest cities the college crowd made about 30% more per hour than the high schoolers.  By 2015 they made almost twice as much.  And don’t forget that the rise of inequality is virtually fractal: similar gaps have opened up within the top 20%, and within the top 5%, 1% and .01%.  The whole rightward tail of the distribution has elongated, pulling ever further from the median.”

Continue reading here.

From a FEDS Note by Hie Joo Ahn and James Hamilton:

“The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 8.4% during the first five years of recovery from the Great Recession of 2007-2009, the weakest recovery on record (see Figure 1). But as the expansion continued, unemployment continued to decline and by 2018 reached the lowest levels in almost half a century. Why did unemployment remain so high for so long, and what factors contributed to the recent lows?”

“One of the most striking features of the length of time people stay unemployed is the heterogeneity across the experience of different people. Most people who become unemployed find a new job relatively quickly. Even during the Great Recession, of people who were newly unemployed in month t, on average only 64% were still unemployed in month t + 1. By contrast, if someone has been unemployed for 4-6 months as of month t, on average since 1976, there was an 81% probability that they would still be unemployed in month t + 1. The lowest the latter probability ever got in any month from 1976 to 2018 was 71%. In other words, the newly unemployed during the Great Recession had better success finding jobs than did the long-term unemployed during the strongest economic boom.”

Continue reading here.